Quote:ITFunity, are you referring to the grafting of one 1 step technique to another and the contiuation of such until you have subdued the attacker/assailant?

I am not 100% sure what you mean by "grafting". If you mean doing combos as a defender with the attacker ceasing to be live & just sort of posing & becoming a model, so to speak, then yes!

Quote:I can see both sides of the conversation and see that each has a benefit. When one steps are practiced properly, they should give you a viable arsenal of techniques to string together in response to a rapid succession of attacks. If practiced enough, they should be committed to muscle memory and flow when the attack begins. I think this may be what you are getting at. If I am worng, please let me know.

Yes & I see the benefit as well. I am only calling into question that the attacker ceases to be a live opponent. Thats it! Period! I am only trying to have him & others can also feel free to weigh in as well, address the point of the opponent who is no longer live, but now a willing partner who is NOT ALLOWED TO CONTINUE TO FIGHT, while the defender can!I see the way Dereck does 1 steps as being a good drill for building combos & did it that way for 14 years. I am not saying which is better, as it would depend on many factors & is really impossible to say.

Quote:Dereck, I also see your point that when things get hairy and the assailant just lets loose with everything, technique goes out the window and reaction takes over. Taking the fight from your assailant by reversing the momentum through rapid, unrelenting, agressive striking and grappling is a good way to make sure you wind up last man standing.

Of course this is the point, however in 1 steps, the assailant allowed is not allowed to let loose, so why is the defender? Answer: because it is a good combo drill ingrains certain valuable skills! But what about the reverse side of the coin & what that ingrains, namely, no longer having a live opponent. Now I knwo there are many ways to handle, address, correct & make up for this. However, that is not what I am trying to have addressed, which is, the now posing model who acts as a partner, assisting the drill, rather than being a true opponent.

Quote:

Quote:Both argumnts have a basis in fact and both are essentially saying the same thing but from different perspectives. Once again, if I am interpretting the discussion wrong, let me know but that is how I see it. Same outcome but two different methods of getting there.Scottie

You Sir are right & close to grasping my point. Hopefully I have help clarify what I am trying to get a response to, limited to the 1 narrow area of difference, without bringing into the conversation OTHER drills that supplement this, as I know that are many that do that effectively & both Dereck & I have given examples of them. Thanks!

Quote:Of course this is the point, however in 1 steps, the assailant allowed is not allowed to let loose, so why is the defender? Answer: because it is a good combo drill ingrains certain valuable skills! But what about the reverse side of the coin & what that ingrains, namely, no longer having a live opponent. Now I knwo there are many ways to handle, address, correct & make up for this. However, that is not what I am trying to have addressed, which is, the now posing model who acts as a partner, assisting the drill, rather than being a true opponent.

Again ITF, this is a training tool. With many of the things we do in class, we train drills using tools and later we take those same tools and put them to the test. We do have drills where the attacker can continue the attack and the defender tries multiple attacks. We will start out with light contact and build from that to a point where it can get fairly aggressive. Remember, it is self defense so why not give all of the tools to the defender and not limited them. Being the attacker is easy, we are not teaching attacking we are teaching self defense.

I want you to understand I am not avoiding what you are proposing but trying to make you understand that this cannot all be summed up in discussing one-steps when we do not do the same ones. Nor do I know all that you do for training nor do you know all that I do for training. For all we know we cover many of the same things however call them different things.

I admit reading your posts have angered me even more and I am lashing out back at you as much as I feel you are lashing out at me. Please forgive me but obviously neither of us can make the other understand so I will take my leave for the moment to calm down so that when we do discuss anything again I can do it in a more calm and collective manner.

Again, your method for one-steps of one attack and one defense is covered in our curriculum. I am not avoiding this as I feel that this is already dealt with.

Edited by Dereck (02/12/0802:01 PM)

_________________________"IF I COME ... I'M BRINGING THE PAIN WITH ME"

Quote:ITF I feel I have replied to this over and over. What am I missing? What don't YOU understand?You want me to try 1 attack and 1 defense ... DONE. This is done within our system and is a part of or curriculum however unlike you we do not call it one-step sparring, it is just another training tool. Obviously you are having a hard time getting around that your one-step sparring is different then our one-step sparring; get over it already and drop the attitude because attitude is what you will get back.

No Sir, I think I have understood what you are saying. I even acknowledge that I mostly agree & have even done them the same way. I am trying not to get bogged down in the semantics of the labels & have repeatedly ask others to refrain as well, as it continues to cloud the issue. I have also asked you to respond simply on the 1 issue of the attacker no longer being an actual attacker, WITHOUT going to the numerous other effective drills that you & me employ. I am sorry that you either won't respond or don't understand what I am trying to get you to address. That is my fault, if I can not communicate more clearly my point. So I am sorry for that & sorry that you think I have an attitude. So since you have not responded to what I can no longer think of any other way to express it, I & am

There are apparent strengths & weaknesses in probably any type of training. I also think no one training regiment or system is better than another, nor I am trying to say that now. It just seems to me, there are downsides to no longer having a live opponent. Since you have not addresses or acknowledged that, I can only assume that you see no down side. I think that any good school, would use the totality of their training regiment to address all weaknesses. I think that your's does, based upon what you have relayed here in this forum. But that of course misses the point, as I was only trying to get you to see what I think may be a possible shortcoming. You don't & I guess thats more than okay. I certainly don't want to have my attempts to come across in any negative way, as that has not been my intent or my desire. I am sorry that you have come to that conclusion.

Just for clarity, the term I used before, grafting, implies using multiple techniques grouped together, one after the other to subdue an attacker who is constantly attacking.

The opponent stays "live". You throw a right straight punch, I parry and counter using a certain one step. You react differently than how I anticipated so now I use a different one step to which you react differently to again than expected so I add a technique from a different one step until I am completely in control of the opponent or have an avenue to flee.

"Grafting - Is the combining of several principles within the flow of a single action. For example a strike may start with a hammering motion, but conclude with a thrusting action without disturbing the natural flow of the executed move. The term also refers to combining self-defense techniques without disruption in their completed or uncompleted state."

Hope this helps.

_________________________"The greatest way to live with honor in this world is to be what we pretend to be."

Quote:Just for clarity, the term I used before, grafting, implies using multiple techniques grouped together, one after the other to subdue an attacker who is constantly attacking. The opponent stays "live". You throw a right straight punch, I parry and counter using a certain one step. You react differently than how I anticipated so now I use a different one step to which you react differently to again than expected so I add a technique from a different one step until I am completely in control of the opponent or have an avenue to flee.

Yes that is what I thought you meant. I didn't realize that your opponent stayed "live". It sounds like a good drill. However, where Dereck & I can't get together on is acknowledging the down side of no longer having a live opponent. I see the downside & offer ways to correct or build, via other drills. He doens't seem to want to acknowledge the down side, even though he offers some good drills to correct or build.

My only point remains that there is a downside to not having a live opponent & I acknowledge that.

ITF, you obviously haven't read anything I've said then because you have stated just the opposite.

There is live training, more live training then there is not. We grapple a lot; that is live training. We spar TKD Olympic style; that is live training. We spar from stand-up to take down to submission; that is live training. The other stuff is simple training tools leading to this. Our one-steps like countless of other drills we use are tools to be able to do these type of live drills.

For instance last night our class began with a rigorous amount of conditioning drills. Last night was meant to drain us of everything but to teach us to keep going. After conditioning we went over punching drills that include 5 sets of punching combos with one set high, one set low, one set upper cut and then flurries. We then broke off into groups of three. One person held focus mitts and one person but on smaller leather gloves. For one minute your did punching and then when the minute was up you laid on the ground while the third person's job was to hold you down and you had to try and stand back up. It was full on grappling for 1 minute and then you stood back up and did the punching. This was done back to back for 4 rounds and when it was done you were burned out. Then it was the next persons turn and you held the focus mitts which were rather difficult as you were tired from just having your turn. When that turn was done the last person did it and you were the guy grappling on the ground trying to hold the person down.

Again this was drill that had live components in it. In many cases then we stay after class and put it all together in a stand-up to take down to submission or just free grapple from our knees. There is plenty of live training drills and live training by sparring.

Without live training then you are only going through the motions and will never grasp what it is like to have to put yourself out there. You want to talk about live training then you need to read and understand this has never been an issue for our training and is covered; but then you would have to look beyond your nose to do this!

_________________________"IF I COME ... I'M BRINGING THE PAIN WITH ME"

Quote:However, where Dereck & I can't get together on is acknowledging the down side of no longer having a live opponent. I see the downside & offer ways to correct or build, via other drills. He doens't seem to want to acknowledge the down side, even though he offers some good drills to correct or build.

My only point remains that there is a downside to not having a live opponent & I acknowledge that.

Let me ask you this ITF. In your throwing classes do you provide total resistance or do you allow yourself to be thrown so you can work on both your falling skills but also so your opponent can work on his throwing skills. Or perhaps you don't have days like this and maybe the example of sparring would be better. Do you allow our partner to kick you to try techniques out while you practice taking kicks and then switch or do you provide total resistance and not allow them to kick you?

Remember we are talking training tools. We allow things to be done so we can understand them and work with them so they are ingrained into our thinking. Then we can put that together into live training by both resisting. Do you understand this better now? One-steps are a training tool and later you put them together in live training.

All techniques must be nursed from learning to training to applying. You must understand and use with no resistance, light resistance, medium resistance and then full resistance. You must do each level with each learning tool; you must crawl before you walk and walk before you run. In your case of finding my one-steps inferior, this means to me you have not grasped this and do not understand though you seem to think that 1 attack and 1 defense is live training when that is the farthest from the truth.

_________________________"IF I COME ... I'M BRINGING THE PAIN WITH ME"

Quote:ITF, you obviously haven't read anything I've said then because you have stated just the opposite.[/qoute]

Sorry you feel that. I have read everything & in it all, there is not 1 response to the sole aspect I wish you to address. Just see below, in your own words, how you still are not replying to the narrow area of do you see a downside in the lack of an opponent, in what you call your 1 steps. That Sir is a simple question. Either yes or no. If yes, then you can elaborate on the many ways you have to supplement that.

Quote:There is live training, more live training then there is not. We grapple a lot; that is live training. We spar TKD Olympic style; that is live training. We spar from stand-up to take down to submission; that is live training. The other stuff is simple training tools leading to this. Our one-steps like countless of other drills we use are tools to be able to do these type of live drills.

Yes & what I am talking about is your tool that you call 1 steps. So Ithe will repeat my question: Is there any downside to not having an alive attack after the initial attack?yes or no?Ball is in your court!

Quote:There is plenty of live training drills and live training by sparring.

great, but I am not talking about themAgain, the same question: Do you see any downside to not having a live opponent after the initial attack in your 1 steps? yes or no

Quote:Without live training then you are only going through the motions and will never grasp what it is like to have to put yourself out there. You want to talk about live training then you need to read and understand this has never been an issue for our training and is covered; but then you would have to look beyond your nose to do this!

Sorry for your response. It is great that you have live training. I also concur this is a must for a good school. Now I again ask the same simple question: Do you see any downside to no longer having a live opponent after the initial attack? yes or noThank you kindly for your perservance. My apologies to you & any other readers if I am boring anyone by asking the same question numerous times.

Quote:In your case of finding my one-steps inferior, this means to me you have not grasped this and do not understand though you seem to think that 1 attack and 1 defense is live training when that is the farthest from the truth.

I have never said that they were inferior. I challenge you to find those words. In fact, I have said they, your way of doing 1 steps is a good drill. I have added that even though I see a possible downside to it, your complete training regiment, as you have explained it, fills gaps & that is a great thing. I will go one step further, your drills may even be better than mine, especially for what you to accomplish. I will again repeat my question: do you see any downside at all to no longer having a live opponent after the initial attack? yes or no

No, I do not think there is a downside to this train; NONE WHAT SO EVER. I do however think if this was the only training that yes it would be but in the context of our curriculum that is is only a positive. Obviously since you cannot grasp this drill and what it can provide as an effective training tool then I won't try to waste any more time trying to explain to you as you are too narrow minded.

I do however see a downside to training only 1 attack and 1 defense because that is not realistic. However if this is trained with other tools in a curriculum then it can be a positive. Any tools used to work to one goal are useful but alone they are not.

So again, "NO" I see absolutely no downfall to this training. Does that answer your question? Does this suffice your thinking? Does it not make is so because the founder said it isn't or it isn't written in your encyclopedias?

Am I angered? Yes. Am I lashing out? Yes. I have answered you over and over but because I am not telling you what you want to hear you don't seem to be listening.

_________________________"IF I COME ... I'M BRINGING THE PAIN WITH ME"